Discussion
Mezzanine said:
LivLL said:
skwdenyer said:
Gweeds said:
Brilliant little cars - our cities should be full of these things.
I'd far rather the streets were full of these:
By comparison, the AMI seems such dull and inefficient engineering
T.25 was a tech demonstrator. T.27 was an EV version of the same. The Shell car was a variant of the same. There was a supposed deal with Yamaha that ran into the sand. TVR was a "here's an actual client" project. And so on. There have been a whole series of grants behind all this.
That's not criticism of him BTW; he plays by the rules of the funding schemes. But it explains why we keep seeing all these prototype vehicles around, without there being a great deal of obvious commercial end result. OX is similar - there's no way the funder would have put up all the money without there being a proper business case and route to market, unless there was some other money floating around in the background IMHO.
What all that stuff did do was pump-prime a consulting business (good), and maintain the impression of Murray as a leading automotive light, which in turn paved the way for the return to mega-money road cars (T.50 et al).
It has been a great business strategy. But it has created a bunch of might-have-beens, like T.25 (which I like), OX (which I also like, but which had as much chance IMHO as the much-maligned Africar of yore, sadly), and so on. Even the TVR - had it arrived on-time - would have been a nice thing.
skwdenyer said:
Murray has been very canny in building up his business using a lot of Innovate UK (Government) funds. He finds a piece of technology, finds a commercial "sponsor" to work with him on it (paying some money and/or acting is the presumptive commercial application of the technology), then rinses and repeats.
T.25 was a tech demonstrator. T.27 was an EV version of the same. The Shell car was a variant of the same. There was a supposed deal with Yamaha that ran into the sand. TVR was a "here's an actual client" project. And so on. There have been a whole series of grants behind all this.
That's not criticism of him BTW; he plays by the rules of the funding schemes. But it explains why we keep seeing all these prototype vehicles around, without there being a great deal of obvious commercial end result. OX is similar - there's no way the funder would have put up all the money without there being a proper business case and route to market, unless there was some other money floating around in the background IMHO.
What all that stuff did do was pump-prime a consulting business (good), and maintain the impression of Murray as a leading automotive light, which in turn paved the way for the return to mega-money road cars (T.50 et al).
It has been a great business strategy. But it has created a bunch of might-have-beens, like T.25 (which I like), OX (which I also like, but which had as much chance IMHO as the much-maligned Africar of yore, sadly), and so on. Even the TVR - had it arrived on-time - would have been a nice thing.
Goddamn, you're right: T.25 was a tech demonstrator. T.27 was an EV version of the same. The Shell car was a variant of the same. There was a supposed deal with Yamaha that ran into the sand. TVR was a "here's an actual client" project. And so on. There have been a whole series of grants behind all this.
That's not criticism of him BTW; he plays by the rules of the funding schemes. But it explains why we keep seeing all these prototype vehicles around, without there being a great deal of obvious commercial end result. OX is similar - there's no way the funder would have put up all the money without there being a proper business case and route to market, unless there was some other money floating around in the background IMHO.
What all that stuff did do was pump-prime a consulting business (good), and maintain the impression of Murray as a leading automotive light, which in turn paved the way for the return to mega-money road cars (T.50 et al).
It has been a great business strategy. But it has created a bunch of might-have-beens, like T.25 (which I like), OX (which I also like, but which had as much chance IMHO as the much-maligned Africar of yore, sadly), and so on. Even the TVR - had it arrived on-time - would have been a nice thing.
As someone who struggles to get access to this funding source, this is "interesting" to see...
dxg said:
Goddamn, you're right:
As someone who struggles to get access to this funding source, this is "interesting" to see...
As ever, the trick is to work out what ticks their boxes. Then rinse and repeat. Building relationships is important there for securing follow-on funding. Like all people in such positions of power over purse strings, they'll tend to back "sure things" and "people we trust" given half a chance.As someone who struggles to get access to this funding source, this is "interesting" to see...
I remember some years ago the Arts Council ran a series of workshops designed to encourage people from ethnic minorities to apply for funding.
A friend of mine attended the first one. They spent the morning explaining how it was really important to forget about stories saying the AC only funded people they had relationships with, and that it was a genuinely level playing field.
After lunch, they introduced somebody with funding to talk about their experiences. They'd clearly not got the memo, because they started to explain how it was only thanks to their building great long-term relationships with AC folk that they were able to get consistently funded for their projects...
The rest of the series of seminars were swiftly cancelled
I've been involved in a successful Innovate funding call. It was a very interesting process - basically, applications are scored, as I'm sure you're aware. The important thing is to understand properly the funding round's criteria, what they're looking for, and how to fit into their idea of what the world should look like. I've also had an unsuccessful bid - for what was a genuinely good response to the question apparently asked in the round, but which simply didn't fit into their idea of what the answer would look like (if they run seminars / Q&As / etc. pre-bid then you must attend and take lots of notes - they'll likely tell you what they're expecting to see, even if it is stupid!). Also important to make sure to tick the right boxes about commercial application, exploitation route, etc. - that's a really big part of the deal.
Happy to talk offline if that's of interest. I don't claim to be an expert. There are people out there who will help write these bids for you - at a significant cost - but I'm not one of them
skwdenyer said:
dxg said:
Goddamn, you're right:
As someone who struggles to get access to this funding source, this is "interesting" to see...
As ever, the trick is to work out what ticks their boxes. Then rinse and repeat. Building relationships is important there for securing follow-on funding. Like all people in such positions of power over purse strings, they'll tend to back "sure things" and "people we trust" given half a chance.As someone who struggles to get access to this funding source, this is "interesting" to see...
I remember some years ago the Arts Council ran a series of workshops designed to encourage people from ethnic minorities to apply for funding.
A friend of mine attended the first one. They spent the morning explaining how it was really important to forget about stories saying the AC only funded people they had relationships with, and that it was a genuinely level playing field.
After lunch, they introduced somebody with funding to talk about their experiences. They'd clearly not got the memo, because they started to explain how it was only thanks to their building great long-term relationships with AC folk that they were able to get consistently funded for their projects...
The rest of the series of seminars were swiftly cancelled
I've been involved in a successful Innovate funding call. It was a very interesting process - basically, applications are scored, as I'm sure you're aware. The important thing is to understand properly the funding round's criteria, what they're looking for, and how to fit into their idea of what the world should look like. I've also had an unsuccessful bid - for what was a genuinely good response to the question apparently asked in the round, but which simply didn't fit into their idea of what the answer would look like (if they run seminars / Q&As / etc. pre-bid then you must attend and take lots of notes - they'll likely tell you what they're expecting to see, even if it is stupid!). Also important to make sure to tick the right boxes about commercial application, exploitation route, etc. - that's a really big part of the deal.
Happy to talk offline if that's of interest. I don't claim to be an expert. There are people out there who will help write these bids for you - at a significant cost - but I'm not one of them
I spent some time in a superficially-open Apollo Protocol hackathon this afternoon. And it very quickly became clear - by all the comments that "they" were recording the event and "they" would not be sharing the recording - it was for their benefit only, that that entire initiative is about Sheffield soaking up all the Innovate UK funding around digital twins, irrespective of sector. And they've hooked the CLC and the CIH into it too because they know that those organisations' initial funding has ended, and they will play the AMRC / Sheffield tune to avoid the fate of the CDBB. Screw the outsiders like me who will not stand a chance competing against that juggernaut. But it's done its token public engagement and now it can bid using all the donated ideas and keep itself and its chosen partners afloat for the next five years using funding that should really be shared across the UK.
I've had a couple of successful KTPs. And many failed Smart Grant applications.
The game, as always, is to be part of the crowd. And the crowd doesn't let others in.
It reminds me of an old EPSRC programme manager who once said "we only fund what we've already funded..." The rise of Innovate funding was supposed to change all that - all it's done is force people up the TRLs.
Edited by dxg on Thursday 24th November 21:54
Snow and Rocks said:
Is there a legal reason for the 28mph thing?
Something like this but with the performance of a Honda 90 would suit us nicely for local running around but even tractors do more than 28 mph these days.
Yes. My understanding is that in France, it is limited to legally allow 14 year olds to drive on public roads.Something like this but with the performance of a Honda 90 would suit us nicely for local running around but even tractors do more than 28 mph these days.
Here, it is classed as a quadracycle, which has other legal implications.
I know some folks are looking to de-restrict the electronics to increase the top speed, but in all honesty, it's quite fast enough around town, including 40mph roads. 0 to 28mph is brisk enough not to be annoying for other road users.
We've put a small "Limited to 28mph" sticker on the back and have not encountered any grumps so far! In fact, people are keen to stop and talk about it - in two days I've had six conversations with different folks.
Best thing to do is try one and see if it's fast enough for you.
Our Ami Tonic order has been cancelled sadly... called Citroen yesterday for an update seeing as order estimate at time of booking was in 2 weeks time but we'd not heard from Citroen at all apart from the initial confirmation emails
Took them a while to find it, then when they did there was "nothing on it" and couldn't give us any sort of tangible date for when it might arrive
MOT is expiring on one of the current cars which we aren't renewing so that would leave us with 1 car and no date on the Ami - which wouldn't really work, if at least they could say "4 weeks you'll have it" I could've held out but not when its so open ended
Might look again to get one next year as Used Approved or hold out and see if they release the Oli
Now got to do some car shopping to get the Mrs a little run around!
Took them a while to find it, then when they did there was "nothing on it" and couldn't give us any sort of tangible date for when it might arrive
MOT is expiring on one of the current cars which we aren't renewing so that would leave us with 1 car and no date on the Ami - which wouldn't really work, if at least they could say "4 weeks you'll have it" I could've held out but not when its so open ended
Might look again to get one next year as Used Approved or hold out and see if they release the Oli
Now got to do some car shopping to get the Mrs a little run around!
Edited by Captain Answer on Tuesday 29th November 09:23
ajprice said:
Silvanus said:
I really home the Ami proves successful and we get plenty of other manufacturers following suit.
I think Vauxhall/Opel are missing a trick not bringing their Rocks-e version here
Silvanus said:
There are a lot of great cars we don't get here. Stelantis must have a commercial reason not to bring it here.
It's the same car with different trims and badges. There must be some people who wouldn't buy a Citroen so wouldn't consider an AMI, but would be fine with a Vauxhall. Whether that's because of badge preference, not having a local Citroen dealer, or whatever reason. Same as C1/108, or Mii/Citigo, or Berlingo/Partner vans.ajprice said:
Silvanus said:
There are a lot of great cars we don't get here. Stelantis must have a commercial reason not to bring it here.
It's the same car with different trims and badges. There must be some people who wouldn't buy a Citroen so wouldn't consider an AMI, but would be fine with a Vauxhall. Whether that's because of badge preference, not having a local Citroen dealer, or whatever reason. Same as C1/108, or Mii/Citigo, or Berlingo/Partner vans.
.Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff